Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday that he is considering running for another term in 2016, when he would be 80 years old.

"I'm seriously thinking about maybe giving another opportunity for you to vote for or against me in a few years from now," McCain said on KFYI-AM in Phoenix. "I'm seriously giving that a lot of thought."

Asked by host Barry Young to clarify if he was saying he might run again, McCain said: "That would not be wrong."

The New York Times's Mark Leibovich, who is in Arizona following McCain, first tweeted the news.

McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, is in his fifth term. He has never taken less than 56 percent of the vote and easily dispatched a primary challenge in 2010 from former congressman J.D. Hayworth.

If he runs again, McCain will likely find himself targeted by tea party groups.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Tuesday that he is considering running for another term in 2016, when he would be 80 years old.

"I'm seriously thinking about maybe giving another opportunity for you to vote for or against me in a few years from now," McCain said on KFYI-AM in Phoenix. "I'm seriously giving that a lot of thought."

Asked by host Barry Young to clarify if he was saying he might run again, McCain said: "That would not be wrong."

The New York Times's Mark Leibovich, who is in Arizona following McCain, first tweeted the news.

McCain, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, is in his fifth term. He has never taken less than 56 percent of the vote and easily dispatched a primary challenge in 2010 from former congressman J.D. Hayworth.

If he runs again, McCain will likely find himself targeted by tea party groups.

I call him an independent, but he is most often conservative - and brilliant. A rare instance of George Will getting it wrong:

Scott Johnson, writing at Powerline:

"I don’t think George Will has ever written a more infuriating column than the one he wrote commending Obama’s Geneva deal with Iran. Why infuriating? Will saves himself the trouble of arguing the premise of his column — that Iran can be “contained” (or deterred) like the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Will saves himself the trouble of arguing it by simply assuming it."

"Adherents of the new consensus would have us believe that only two choices remain: a war to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or containment of a nuclear Iran—with containment the only responsible option. Yet as an unregenerate upholder of the old consensus, I remain convinced that containment is impossible, from which it follows that the two choices before us are not war vs. containment but a conventional war now or a nuclear war later."

***Yet as an unregenerate upholder of the old consensus, I remain convinced that containment is impossible, from which it follows that the two choices before us are not war vs. containment but a conventional war now or a nuclear war later."****

I agree with this. As John Bolton said, "if you think Iran is a problem now imagine what it will be like with nuclear weapons."

Just seems to me as more countries achieve nuclear weapons capabilities the more likely they will be used.

Iran like those of us on this board have long ago realized the US had no intention of using military means to stop them.

US leaders look ridiculous stating "the military option is on the table".

I wonder if Will would have come to the same forgone conclusions if he lived in Tel Aviv?

Bringing CCP comments here: "As for Christie I admit if he is thrown out (he won't resign) I know my taxes will go even higher. And half of NJ will be cheering for that.

Yet I won't accept a liar. I won't accept anyone who abuses his/her power. He is full of crap. He knew. Just like Obama knew. Just like the Clintons knew.

This kind of behavior from right OR left has got to stop.

We need people who are honest. First and foremost. For God's sake is this too much to ask?"

CCP is far closer to the situation than me. My reaction was that IF he is telling the truth, then the way he handled it was masterful. And if he is not, and caught, he is done (unlike Clinton, Obama, and other Dems caught in similar or worse situations).

CCP believes he is lying. Maybe time will tell. My question: If we go back in his political career and governance, are there (other) instances where he was proven a liar? In the case of Clinton and Obama, looking back now, the answer is clearly yes. With Christie, if so, I didn't know that.

I hope at least he doesn't dress up in his clown suit and actually wears a suit and tie but I doubt it. Look he may be a very smart business man and entertaining to those so inclined but give me a break. Are people really going to take this seriously? And Donald Trump again? He must have paid an arm and a leg. I don't have anything against Trump but at this point he is not a serious spokesperson for Americans. OTOH hand the left had their promiscuous BCP champion.....

*******Duck Dynasty's Robertson To Address GOP Conference

Happy, happy, happy!

News | Larry O'Connor |

The Republican Leadership Conference has announced their speakers for this weekend's conference in New Orleans, LA and the list includes reality television star Phil Robertson and Donald Trump.

Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Robertson family and star of the series “Duck Dynasty,” will address the 2014 Republican Leadership Conference, Thursday May 29th at 6pm. Also speaking on Thursday evening are RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Ron Johnson and Ben Sasse. Other Speakers at the 2014 Republican Leadership Conference include Governor Rick Perry, Governor Phil Bryant, US Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, & David Vitter; Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Allen West! The Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans has become one of the premier political events in the country.

Robertson was a target of gay rights activists in December 2013 after comments regarding homosexual behavior were published in an interview with GQ magazine. At the time, A & E, the network his show Duck Dynasty appears on, suspended him. After an intense and vocal response from the show's loyal fans, and an overwhelming petition drive here at Truth Revolt, he was reinstated.*********

If you lived in the Virginia - DC area, or thought for a moment about what the greatest industry of American 2014 is, the answer would be obvious. He resigned to start the clock 5 months early on the ban on revolving door lobbying. To hell with representing the people of Virginia, the big money is in selling back all that influence and he can't wait to get started. (http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/01/three-reasons-eric-cantor-quit-early/)

Prove us wrong Eric, but it looks like your core principles are power and influence and the people of your district got it right.

I keep getting notify rather than reply on some threads I pull up......

What is the Republican response to the middle class. The same old tired few buzz words. Same old tired stuff of Romney:

tax cuts

trickle down

jobs

"the economy"

My thesis is that is not resonating with the middle class. IF IT WAS republicans would be winning in landslides. If they cannot or can only barely win now with the abomination in the WH now, then they are cooked. It will over in 10 years once Texas goes Crat with the millions of new Democrat voters flooding the country.

Until republicans can come up with policies that make the playing field at least more competitive and fair for the middle class they will lose or barely win IMHO. I don't agree with all of this but Republicans HAVE to have some sort of improved and advanced message to address the concerns brought up here. If not they will always flounder in the wind:

I couldn't agree more. Get the Bushes and crew into the parties' proverbial back of the bus. They are going to bring the party into the garbage if not already so:

****August 29, 2014

Why Karl Rove and the GOP Establishment Will Lose Again

By C. Edmund Wright

Karl Rove is at it once again. The so-called “strategist” is again confusing strategy with tactics, and is about to blow easy Senate pickups in Arkansas and North Carolina. This is not merely snatching defeat from the jaws of victory -- this is snatching defeat from the bowels of victory -- in astonishing tone-deaf fashion.

There is absolutely no excuse for not winning these two races.

So how is the one-time “boy genius” doing this? By running ads attacking Senators Mark Pryor and Kay Hagan from the left. Yes, you heard that right. Rove’s Crossroads GPS PAC is insisting in their latest ads in both states that Republican candidates Tom Cotton and Thom Tillis are better liberals than Pryor and Hagan, at least on Social Security. The ads attack Hagan and Pryor for wanting to raise the eligibility age for the defunct program.

Okay. So let’s somehow miss that Obama and Harry Reid are toxic associations in red states. Forget that ObamaCare is showing how big government liberalism is an abject failure. Forget that the VA scandal is showing the same thing. Forget that workforce participation is the lowest in history. Forget that the hated IRS has been outed as an arm of the Democrat party. Forget that deficits are at a record. Forget that the entire country is starting to recognize that our national nausea is almost always being caused by too much nanny-state liberalism.

Rove and the GOP elite need to put down their pizzas and get out of the focus-group lab and into the real world a little bit. If they did, it might dawn on them to run a campaign of big ideas and overarching themes. You know, to tap into that anti-liberal anti-big government/nanny state mood? (No, that can’t work. I mean, those unapologetic big picture conservative campaigns fail every time -- you know, like in 1980, 84, 94, and 2010. And of course, the moderate fake right, go left, niche-by-niche strategies tried in 96, 98, 2006, 2008 and 2012 worked so well, right?)

So how does all of this self-evident history, not to mention a common sense understanding of human nature, escape all of the top Republican messaging sorcerers? One big factor is the isolated bubble that is Washington (and includes the New York media center). Precious little reality seeps into this bubble. Conservative columnist John Nolte even theorizes that the media is just as intent on shielding Washington Republicans from exposure to what’s really going on outside the beltway as they are to push their general liberal bias. He may have a point.

But there’s more.

Rove has the mind of a tactician, and a good one. He was a direct-mail guru for a long time before rising to prominence in the George W. Bush campaigns and administration. The problem is that he is now so involved with strategy -- and with the main thrust of messaging. Tactics and strategy are both necessary, but they are very different mindsets and skill sets. Strategy is a big picture right-brained enterprise. Tactics are a bureaucratic left-brained endeavor. The tactician Rove simply does not have the right mindset or skill set to be involved in ‘strategy’ messaging. It’s not who he is. No one is wired to do both.

Thus he runs broadcast campaigns the way he ran direct mail campaigns -- talk abortion over here, trade over there, and social security in another place. The problem is, when you broadcast niche issues, you are destroying your team’s ability to advance a big picture message. Rove is literally campaigning against the overwhelming national zeitgeist with his overresearched misunderstanding of what the tea leaves are saying.

You cannot win this way. It never works. Why would it? It makes no sense except to those who are so bogged down with the minutiae of focus-group research that they can’t see the forest for the trees. Focus groups and snapshot polls are the death of conservative campaigns. Conservatism cannot be understood within the confines of a two-hour focus group, nor can focus groups predict the reaction of voters to a multi-month long campaign of conservative messages in two hours either. Focus groups cannot possibly judge the impact of a long campaign message over time -- and yet, those who push this junk science use them for that express purpose. Rove is a big believer. We are big losers.

Consider: a focus group, by definition, tends toward emotional and big government solutions -- because it is a lowest common denominator pursuit due to the confines of time, peer pressure, and the participant selection process. You can’t even get into one of these groups until you can prove you are low information. Yet inspired by focus-group data, the Rove and GOP establishment-style campaigns continue to be shallow, niche-driven low-information campaigns. They are designed to make the low-information people think that our party joins them in their low-information opinions. I guess it never occurs to these wizards to use a campaign to educate voters and persuade them to join us? You know, like 80, 84, 94 and 2010? Google Reagan, Newt, and Tea Party for clarification.

Rove made a point to personally insult my book at a GOP convention in Charlotte in 2013, calling it a “poorly researched piece of trash.” My reply was that his 400-million-dollar ad campaign in 2012 was the poorly researched piece of trash. So are his campaigns this cycle too.

George W. Bush has called Rove both a “boy genius” and a “turd blossom.” I agree with Bush about 50% of the time, so I’ll go with the latter.

The author is a contributor to American Thinker and Newsmax TV, is author of Amazon bestseller WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again, and comments at www.cedmundwright.com.

American Thinker on FacebookAmerican Thinker on Twitter American Thinker Newsletter Signup

Boehner's embrace of GOP rebels nudges House caucus to rightAssociated Press By CHARLES BABINGTON 21 hours ago ˠ➕✓✕Content preferences Done FILE - In this May 17, 2013 file photo, Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. The “hell-no” caucus of House Republicans who tried to overthrow Speaker John Boehner is as strong as ever despite an ineffective coup attempt. The conservatives won approval of the leadership to push a far-reaching bill next week that not only rolls back President Barack Obama’s immigration changes but overturns protections for immigrants brought illegally to the country as children. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File) . View gallery . . . . WASHINGTON (AP) — Die-hard House conservatives bungled a coup against House Speaker John Boehner but now look like winners, pushing Republicans farther right.

Related StoriesBoehner's Embrace Of GOP Hard-Liners Pushes House Further To The Right Huffington Post House GOP takes broad aim at Obama immigration policies Associated Press House GOP tries to regroup after divisive speaker vote Associated Press [$$] Challenges Await Speaker Boehner After Election to Third Term The Wall Street Journal [$$] Risks, Rewards for Boehner in Rebellion by GOP Right The Wall Street Journal Rather than punish and isolate those who opposed him as leader, Boehner surprised many on Friday by embracing an immigration plan that's tougher than lawmakers had expected. It would block President Barack Obama's recent limits on deportations and undo protections for immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

The House is heading toward a vote Wednesday.

As the rebellious hard-liners celebrated, mainstream Republicans said Boehner's decision probably portends firmly conservative approaches to other issues. That would complicate life for some of the more moderate Senate Republicans and ensure fierce battles with the Democratic president.

Florida Rep. Richard Nugent, one of the 25 House Republicans who voted to oust Boehner, praised the Boehner-backed immigration plan.

The dissidents have complained that Boehner, R-Ohio, is too willing to compromise with Obama and Democrats. But rather than seeing the rebels frozen out during private GOP discussions on immigration strategy, Nugent said, "this time it's a very collaborative approach."

View gallery House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, departs a closed-door&nbsp;&hellip; House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, departs a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington, Fri …For now, though, Nugent is still off the House Rules Committee, where membership is at the speaker's discretion.

Equally enthusiastic was Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican sometimes portrayed by Democrats as the most unreasonable of conservative purists.

"One of the things that has really been lacking for the last eight years is having more input like we've finally gotten in this bill," Gohmert said.

Some Boehner allies had urged him to punish and isolate Gohmert and the other rebels.

But that approach might permanently antagonize tea party-leaning Republicans and "force Boehner into making more concessions" to Democrats to pass bills, "which is the last thing in the world we want," said GOP Rep. Kenny Marchant of Texas, shortly after Tuesday's leadership vote.

View gallery Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, talks to reporters on&nbsp;&hellip; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, talks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, Jan. 9, 2015. …By Friday, Marchant was reassured. "The focus now is to solicit input and try to bring them into the fold," he said.

Boehner's agreement to nudge his caucus rightward, especially on immigration, could cause headaches for Republican presidential candidates needing Hispanic votes. It also will complicate life for Senate Republicans, who now hold the majority but generally cannot pass bills without at least six Democratic votes, thanks to filibuster powers.

"It probably makes it more difficult in the Senate, but we shouldn't worry about what the Senate is going to do," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, often seen as a voice for Republican House leaders.

The approach, Cole said, "takes a lot of political pressure off House Republicans." One reason that 25 Republicans voted against Boehner, he said Friday, "was because they didn't believe we were going to do exactly what we're doing today" on immigration.

The Senate is virtually certain to weaken such bills. House Republicans acknowledge they will face tough choices when it's time to work out the differences.

View gallery FILE - In this Jan. 24, 2012 file photo Rep. Richard&nbsp;&hellip; FILE - In this Jan. 24, 2012 file photo Rep. Richard Nugent, R-Fla. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washin …"The litmus test is going to be what happens with this bill when it hits the Senate and comes back to us," said GOP Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, a staunch conservative who voted for Boehner as speaker.

In recent years, when the Republicans' House majority was smaller, Boehner sometimes had to negotiate with Democrats for enough votes to pass measures that dozens of conservative Republicans refused to back. Doing so is politically risky for a speaker, and increasingly difficult now that centrist members of both parties have largely been driven from Congress.

At issue is a $39.7 billion spending bill to keep the Department of Homeland Security funded beyond February.

The House version would block Obama's November order granting temporary relief from deportation to about 4 million immigrants who are in the country illegally. Most have been here at least five years and have children who are citizens or legal permanent residents.

In a surprise to many, the House GOP proposal also would reverse a 2012 program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, that removed deportation threats to certain immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children.

Bush’s biggest electability problems would come if he does survive what will be a bloodbath GOP primary, as it’s unlikely conservative Republican voters would even turn out for him in a November general election should he get the nomination. This poll shows yet again why that’s the case.

Respondents were asked the following question about Obama, Clinton, Bush, the Republican Party and the Democrat Party: “Let me read you a list of some groups and individuals, and I would like you to tell me how well each one represents the values of the middle class–very well, fairly well, just somewhat well, or not very well. If you don’t know the name, please just say so.”

A whopping 22 percent gave Obama a “very well” rating, and 18 percent did so for Clinton. The Democratic Party got 15 percent “very well” rating and Republicans got 7 percent. But Bush only managed to muster 4 percent, an abysmally low performance among arguably the most important part of the American public for any political candidate: the middle class.

A total of 40 percent responded Bush doesn’t represent middle class values, and 38 percent were somewhere in the middle between “very well” and “not very well.”

Bush’s spokeswoman Kristy Campbell hasn’t responded to an emailed request for comment in response to these numbers.

The survey was conducted from March 1 through March 5 with a sample of a 1,000 adults with a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

Whether you are a gym teacher or a former Speaker of the House, one question you might ask yourself before committing any crime or moral sin is how will this look in the newspapers?

Scummy character comes on both sides. I would like to think that Republicans will turn against their own when they deserve it. He's not running for anything, but hopefully would not be endorsed for dog catcher once we know about the sleaze. That is not always true over on the other side.

Let's rip Hastert a little further. He was speaker from 1999 until they lost the congress to Reid, Pelosi and the gang that now has a hold on the executive branch. During 4 of those years, Republicans held the Presidency, Senate and House. They did a few things partly right, but their governance also included lack of spending restraint, the authorization of new federal programs, and the funding of all things the federal government does that it shouldn't, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, CRAp just to name a few that came back to bite us, while they failed to repeal or reform anything, like Humphrey-Hawkins and the dual mission of the Fed, or the budget process or CBO.

Like nearly all elected Republicans, they failed to communicate the reasons why they were doing something even when they got it right. The end result of it all was financial meltdown and the election of liberal Democrats to run everything. In other words, they managed to get Republicans blamed for Democrat policies.

The Speaker of the House is next in line to be President, behind the VP. One qualification therefore for Speaker IMO is to be Presidential, not just be legislatively effective. Hastert's strength was the opposite. His job was to blend in with the furniture and not draw attention to anything. While they were working so hard to offend no one, fund everything, reform nothing, and go along with every RINO whim like a federal education program authored by Ted Kennedy and a federal housing Ponzi scheme that started before they got there, they managed to get reelected (until the end) and muster up about a 9% approval rate, while squandering a surplus, increasing spending by 60%. They gave supply side economics a bad name without even trying it - and left people thinking this country needed a sharp left turn to correct all of that!

It wasn’t long after that the Sunlight Foundation reported on just how much Hastert thought himself qualified to steer earmarks back home. The foundation found that Hastert had used a secret trust to join with others and invest in farm land near the proposed route of a new road called the Prairie Parkway. He then helped secure a $207 million earmark for the road. The land, approximately 138 acres, was bought for about $2.1 million in 2004 and later sold for almost $5 million, or a profit of 140 percent. Local land records and congressional disclosure forms never identified Hastert as the co-owner of any of the land in the trust. Hastert turned a $1.3 million investment (his portion of the land holdings) into a $1.8 million profit in less than two years.

This is probably a very common scam the politicians use to make money. Remember this is exactly how Harry Reid got his millions. Same scam.

"Oh but perfectly legal"

As for Hastert as a Speaker I do recall he was for the party, the country, and a representative worthless. He never did or said anything.As for sexual indiscretion(s) hard to say. Why now that he is rich did his alleged victim come forward ~ 35 later.

"This is probably a very common scam the politicians use to make money. Remember this is exactly how Harry Reid got his millions. Same scam."

- It sure does sound the same - except that this was after Hastert left office so R's have no more opportunity to kick him out. Dems had every opportunity and left their slime in power.

"Oh but perfectly legal"

- I doubt that.

"As for sexual indiscretion(s) hard to say. Why now that he is rich did his alleged victim come forward ~ 35 later."

- There are better explanations for why not come forward sooner than for why these payments were made. Since i'm not on the jury and don't want to look into the facts any further, I'm going to assume he's guilty. Otherwise he can explain the payments in a way that we believe him. BTW, praying on young boys is not an 'indiscretion'. It's closer to treason - the thread where this started. Penalty should be genitalia-ectomy. Maybe that would discourage it.

On the face of it, I reject that there is a GOP establishment. It simply isn't that organized and they aren't that powerful. What you call establishment, I call elected Republicans. Somehow they just change when they get elected and go to Washington. They change even worse when elected to leadership, see Boehner and McConnell.

Yet I keep getting proven wrong on my establishment denial theory:

pp: "Questions:1. What about Lisa Murkowski of Alaska? She lost to the Tea Party candidate in the primary, then ran as an independent and was supported by the RNC.2. What about Tadd Cochrone in Mississippi, where the RNC took out his challenger in the runoff?3. What about McCain in 2008 when asked about if he lost and whether he would support the nominee. His response was that it would depend upon the candidate and who was running for the other side.

True stories, unfortunately. See also the candidates' promises to repeal Obamacare and the organizational refusal to use the only constitutional tool they are have, the power of the purse.

CCP wrote: "It is so frustrating to see the Iran deal go through and the Republicans handed Obama this too. How outrageous!"

Also true. The Iran agreement is a treaty, requires 2/3rd support of the Senate for ratification. Instead the President needs only 34 votes, not even all of his own party for the 'deal' to go into effect. How did that happen? See the Corker bill that passed 98-1 with only Sen Tom Cotton opposing. Why did that happen?

Who is the Republican 'establishment"? This I don't really get. Reince Priebus (RNC Chair) was just a young nerd / star out of Wisconsin who engineered a series of great victories before getting the national job. He is a behind the scenes strategist, not really a power broker in the conventional sense. He has resources, but most of the money lies outside the party. Karl Rove? He is what many think of as establishment; he certainly has contacts and has some resources. Rove engineered two Presidential wins with a mediocre candidate so he has some credibility but does not control puppet strings. WSJ? The editorial page is run by Paul Gigot from Green Bay, Wisconsin and has a team of relatively young writers. They have quite a bit of earned influence, mostly good views and a blind spot on immigration. No power beyond the persuasion of their columns. The Koch brothers? No power beyond the influence of their money. We would be better off on policies if they did have more power, I hate to say. The Chamber of Commerce? I don't know.

It comes back I think to my original point, there isn't really an establishment, just a shift that politicians make as they go from outsider running for bold change to an insider afraid to upset the apple cart. The so-called establishment doesn't control much outside of their chamber or a PAC or two they influence. Proof: Trump and some tea party wins.

Where I part with some on this is the nature of this war against the Republican establishment, if there is one. In the end, we have to unite. There needs to be a war of ideas and direction, and maybe even of tone and temperament, and it needs to be won, but we can't forget that the side that wins within the party needs to unite with those they defeated in the party in order to win the Presidency and the nation. Otherwise it's all Hillary or whoever fills in after her fall, and we will have a country that can't be saved within our lifetime, if ever.

*Well someone or some people are changing these lap dogs* shortly after they get to Washington and turning them into keeping the status quo.

I agree with pp. Usually the answer can be found by following the money.

When we have politicians and their families in and out of lobbying, lawyer jobs, advisors, board of directors in a revolving door fashion peddling their influence in and out of office we've got a big problem. Really not much different than any other corrupt country IMO.

I hate to say McCain is right. Too much money in politics.

I am not so sure we are better off having unlimited donations being deemed "free speech".

With all of the talk on Jonah Goldberg and Trump, I have tried to explain why so many of us are through with the GOPe. Sundance at Conservative Treehouse does it much more elegantly that I could ever do.

Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider. A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion. Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.

While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.

The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists. I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am. The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.From your own writing:

[…] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)

With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.

Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”. If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent. Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities. I digress.

Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski? A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you forget. We do not.

Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.

You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test? Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.

The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.

Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes? All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP

• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP

• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP

• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP

• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP

• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP

• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP

• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP

• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP

• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP

• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP

• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP

• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?

Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?

THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?

Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

The House just postponed the Iran Vote due to the House Freedom Caucus rebelling. The leaders are going to meet this afternoon to "discuss" what to do.Want to bet that they try some other way to push the Iran Agreement through? If so, it again shows how out of touch the GOPe is with the base.

Update on the vote. Notice they will vote to say that Obama did not submit all parts and side deals, but no problem. Let's just vote on approval without demanding all the documents. Just get it out of our hair.

And people wonder why Trump is increasing in support daily....

The House GOP is discussing a new plan, which they plan to present to the rank-and-file at a 4 p.m. meeting Wednesday, that would attempt to pass legislation with three separate concepts. They are moving toward voting on a measure asserting Obama did not submit all elements of the agreement with Iran, a concept first raised by Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), a former member of GOP leadership. Second, Republicans are working on a bill to try to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions against Iran. Third, the House would vote on a resolution to approve of the Iran pact. The original plan was to vote on a disapproval resolution.

Senator Corker is the idiot who wrote the legislation that allowed Obama to push through the Iran Agreement. Now he wants to vote even though all side deals have not been disclosed. There was no intention of not allowing the Iran Agreement to be passed. Of course, it also is supported by the Chamber of Commerce.

Corker is also the idiot that in 2012, wrote a new bill for future lending. In it, he wanted to create a bunch of little Fannie Maes, and then he wanted to create a huge database of mortgage loans. The database would include ALL details in the loan applications, including income, debt, assets, etc. It would also show the new mortgage terms and all sorts of other things.

Big vote called for tomorrow (Thurs.) in the Senate. I wonder if we'll find out Mitch McConnell and company suddenly grew a backbone.

This isn't a shut down the government issue. It is a jumpstart (or not) the world's number one sponsor of terror issue. It is a pave the path for Iran to get nuclear weapons issue - and start a Middle East arms race, or not. It is the security of our ally Israel at stake - and of the "Great Satan" . Politically, it is a chance to do something right, something popular, something constitutional, and something with no political cost. The outsiders, the insiders and the public all see this for what it is. They don't need cover, but if they did, Chuck Schumer and Debbie Blabbermouth could provide it. There is nothing but themselves to stop them from blowing the whistle on Obama and stopping a really bad deal.

Doug,Follow the money. The Chamber of Commerce and Tom Donahue brings to bear the biggest guns of all to the political process on the GOPe side. It is the money gun.

Lifting the sanctions and allowing Iran to get nukes allow for COC members to begin selling the rope to hang ourselves to Iran. Heck, if it is good enough for Europe, it is good enough for us.

I agree in terms of their don't rock the boat approach to not governing and not being a check or balance on the leftist in chief. Don't rock the boat, don't risk a shutdown is a strategy to hold the Senate, House and look like adults coming into the Presidential election. But allowing one branch to run roughshod over the rest of is to neglect their own voters, their constitutional responsibilities and their country.

But, Mitch McConnell et al, why would you care who wins the next election if you don't dare to govern?

I realize that I am just an old conspiracy fool, thinking that the GOPe establishment is out to get Trump, and to get Bush in power, or someone like him. I really should grab hold of reality. I will say that I should probably offer apologies for any belief that Kristol was a GOPe type, or that Kristol and others would not support a nominee like Trump who differed from their own views. Obviously I was wrong. Kristol will go out of his way to support a GOP nominee like Trump.

See why I do not trust the GOPe? They and the pundits don't give a damn about the people and the base. It is all about them, their special interests, and getting in money to support their causes.

Let the GOPe Burn!!!

Btw, I am preparing something going into depth about the problems within the GOP and the dynamics at play. I think it would be a good idea since we see the same type of dynamics playing out here, with Doug, CD, CCP, Objectiveism! and myself.

It will be a long piece. Doing it while doing my real work...............